ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2012) " One of the most deeply rooted concepts in science and in our everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. If an event A is a cause of an effect B, then B cannot be a cause of A. Now theoretical physicists from the University of Vienna and the Universit" Libre de Bruxelles have shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one.http://www.sciencedaily.com...

"The real challenge is finding out where in nature we should look for superpositions of causal orders," explains Caslav Brukner from the Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information group of the University of Vienna.

It will be interesting to learn how this entire quantum mess impacts us in daily life. I imagine it will have an impact in ways we would never imagine today.

At 10/3/2012 11:47:22 AM, slo1 wrote:Here is the real question from the article.

"The real challenge is finding out where in nature we should look for superpositions of causal orders," explains Caslav Brukner from the Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information group of the University of Vienna.

It will be interesting to learn how this entire quantum mess impacts us in daily life. I imagine it will have an impact in ways we would never imagine today.

"As long as only the laws of classical physics are allowed, the order of events is fixed: either Bob or Alice is first to enter the room and leave a message for the other person."Says it all.

" When quantum mechanics enters into play, however, the picture may change drastically. According to quantum mechanics, objects can lose their well-defined classical properties, such as e.g. a particle that can be at two different locations at the same time. In quantum physics this is called a "superposition."So if we allow for this interpretation of how things happen then we get this causality problem...so let's not allow this interpretation! Problem solved! No need to accept any more quantum mysticism BS.

At 10/3/2012 11:47:22 AM, slo1 wrote:Here is the real question from the article.

"The real challenge is finding out where in nature we should look for superpositions of causal orders," explains Caslav Brukner from the Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information group of the University of Vienna.

It will be interesting to learn how this entire quantum mess impacts us in daily life. I imagine it will have an impact in ways we would never imagine today.

"As long as only the laws of classical physics are allowed, the order of events is fixed: either Bob or Alice is first to enter the room and leave a message for the other person."Says it all.

" When quantum mechanics enters into play, however, the picture may change drastically. According to quantum mechanics, objects can lose their well-defined classical properties, such as e.g. a particle that can be at two different locations at the same time. In quantum physics this is called a "superposition."So if we allow for this interpretation of how things happen then we get this causality problem...so let's not allow this interpretation! Problem solved! No need to accept any more quantum mysticism BS.

Quantum mechanics has never been shown to be wrong. It is why things like MRI's, transistors, lasers and one day how super duper computers will work.

In fact if we only looked at the world through classical lens, it would be possible to heat up metal and have it radiate an infinite amount of energy. We both know that is not possible and only quantum mechanics can explain why that is not possible.

Classical physics can't explain why a molecule made of 10 atom creates an interference pattern when shot through a slit.

Why would you support a classical theory that is proven to be wrong when it comes to the behaviors of particles?

At 10/3/2012 11:45:13 AM, slo1 wrote:ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2012) " One of the most deeply rooted concepts in science and in our everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. If an event A is a cause of an effect B, then B cannot be a cause of A.

Quantum mechanics is always so obscure at first. But if you decide to look at this situation from the perspective of non-linear time, then the idea of causality completely falls out the window. If event A and event B don't occur 'one after the other' but instead are thought of as holding different positions in space-time then you can see that they are more like events spaced out. It's almost like the events themselves have a mass in terms of time. Therefore, if they have a multi-dimentional relationship instead of a linear one, then you can better visualise how A can effect B and B can also effect A.

I must admit I only have a very basic understanding of the Quantum world, and this is the best o could come up with. Hopefully it at least inspires some discussion.

At 10/3/2012 11:47:22 AM, slo1 wrote:Here is the real question from the article.

"The real challenge is finding out where in nature we should look for superpositions of causal orders," explains Caslav Brukner from the Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information group of the University of Vienna.

It will be interesting to learn how this entire quantum mess impacts us in daily life. I imagine it will have an impact in ways we would never imagine today.

"As long as only the laws of classical physics are allowed, the order of events is fixed: either Bob or Alice is first to enter the room and leave a message for the other person."Says it all.

" When quantum mechanics enters into play, however, the picture may change drastically. According to quantum mechanics, objects can lose their well-defined classical properties, such as e.g. a particle that can be at two different locations at the same time. In quantum physics this is called a "superposition."So if we allow for this interpretation of how things happen then we get this causality problem...so let's not allow this interpretation! Problem solved! No need to accept any more quantum mysticism BS.

Quantum mechanics has never been shown to be wrong.

Sure it has: QM's version of gravity is wrong and contradicts standard QM. This is why Quantum Gravity is a separate theory. Also, QM is incomplete.

It is why things like MRI's, transistors, lasers and one day how super duper computers will work.

No, QM is an INTERPRETATION of how those things work; furthermore, there are various interpretations of QM that interpret how those things work.

In fact if we only looked at the world through classical lens, it would be possible to heat up metal and have it radiate an infinite amount of energy. We both know that is not possible and only quantum mechanics can explain why that is not possible.

Again, there are various interpretations of QM that explain how these things work WITHOUT the mysticism.

Classical physics can't explain why a molecule made of 10 atom creates an interference pattern when shot through a slit.

Again, see above.

Why would you support a classical theory that is proven to be wrong when it comes to the behaviors of particles?

Because I am not. I am supporting a different INTERPRETATION of QM, namely Bohmian Mechanics.

At 10/3/2012 11:47:22 AM, slo1 wrote:Here is the real question from the article.

"The real challenge is finding out where in nature we should look for superpositions of causal orders," explains Caslav Brukner from the Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information group of the University of Vienna.

It will be interesting to learn how this entire quantum mess impacts us in daily life. I imagine it will have an impact in ways we would never imagine today.

"As long as only the laws of classical physics are allowed, the order of events is fixed: either Bob or Alice is first to enter the room and leave a message for the other person."Says it all.

" When quantum mechanics enters into play, however, the picture may change drastically. According to quantum mechanics, objects can lose their well-defined classical properties, such as e.g. a particle that can be at two different locations at the same time. In quantum physics this is called a "superposition."So if we allow for this interpretation of how things happen then we get this causality problem...so let's not allow this interpretation! Problem solved! No need to accept any more quantum mysticism BS.

Quantum mechanics has never been shown to be wrong.

Sure it has: QM's version of gravity is wrong and contradicts standard QM. This is why Quantum Gravity is a separate theory. Also, QM is incomplete.

It is why things like MRI's, transistors, lasers and one day how super duper computers will work.

No, QM is an INTERPRETATION of how those things work; furthermore, there are various interpretations of QM that interpret how those things work.

In fact if we only looked at the world through classical lens, it would be possible to heat up metal and have it radiate an infinite amount of energy. We both know that is not possible and only quantum mechanics can explain why that is not possible.

Again, there are various interpretations of QM that explain how these things work WITHOUT the mysticism.

Classical physics can't explain why a molecule made of 10 atom creates an interference pattern when shot through a slit.

Again, see above.

Why would you support a classical theory that is proven to be wrong when it comes to the behaviors of particles?

Because I am not. I am supporting a different INTERPRETATION of QM, namely Bohmian Mechanics.

oh, I understand. Although, by throwing in your support towards Bohmian Mechanics you are supporting a classical version of matter exceeding the speed of light, no? Einstein would be very disappointed in you.

PS. when I was referring to quantum mechanics I was referring to the core equations that describe the behaviors of particles. Quantum Gravity is not yet a part of that and is its own theory trying to fit gravity within QM, thus it holds true that QM has yet to be proven wrong in describing behavior of particles. Those equations remain critical in continuing to develop technologies that operate at a quantum level.

In fact one of the main contentions of Bohmian Mechanics remains how close it matches QM in terms of describing some of those behaviors.

The interpretations that address what is really going on is part of ongoing scientific process. I'm not willing to hang my hat on any given interpretation, although I will admit I think the scorn the scientific community has given to the pursuit of what is going on has hindered the process. "Mystical" or not scientists need to be given more freedom without stigma to explore, and that is exactly why the Bohmian Mechanics interpretation is so far out of favor and continues to be.

You obviously don't understand what you're writing about.A chain of causality, a cause producing an effect, which acts as a cause,producing an effect, isn't a mess, nor does it reverse cause & effect.There's no such thing as a "quantum world" .Quantum just means very, very, tiny.The Young Experiment proved that "particles" can't exist.Particles, let alone 1 particle, can't produce an interference probability wave pattern.It's impossible for an object ( "particle" ) , or whatever, to be in 2 or more places at the same time.Each supposedly the same object in each of the many universes in the multiverse,omniverse, or whatever, is Different.

At 12/28/2014 7:10:14 AM, Vajrasattva-LeRoy wrote:You obviously don't understand what you're writing about.A chain of causality, a cause producing an effect, which acts as a cause,producing an effect, isn't a mess, nor does it reverse cause & effect.There's no such thing as a "quantum world" .Quantum just means very, very, tiny.The Young Experiment proved that "particles" can't exist.Particles, let alone 1 particle, can't produce an interference probability wave pattern.It's impossible for an object ( "particle" ) , or whatever, to be in 2 or more places at the same time.Each supposedly the same object in each of the many universes in the multiverse,omniverse, or whatever, is Different.

So you deny the wave-particle duality of matter, huh? That is a tough area to walk in when everything is just a wave, literally and figuratively.

L. Ron Hubbard stated that Absolutes have to be considered logically unobtainable.If particularity/ wave duality is, in fact, correct, then 100% wave probability & 0 % particle probability - or vice versa- has to be false.(Quantum Physics is Really Fascinating, isn't it? )The results of the Young Experiment, however, seem to be quite definite.There's no way that Particles, let alone ONE particle, can produce Interference Probability Wave Patterns.

At 12/28/2014 7:10:14 AM, Vajrasattva-LeRoy wrote:You obviously don't understand what you're writing about.A chain of causality, a cause producing an effect, which acts as a cause,producing an effect, isn't a mess, nor does it reverse cause & effect.There's no such thing as a "quantum world" .Quantum just means very, very, tiny.The Young Experiment proved that "particles" can't exist.Particles, let alone 1 particle, can't produce an interference probability wave pattern.It's impossible for an object ( "particle" ) , or whatever, to be in 2 or more places at the same time.Each supposedly the same object in each of the many universes in the multiverse,omniverse, or whatever, is Different.

I agree with you that causality may not be offended by quantum theory. Physicists have instructed us to momentarily disregard physical laws when studying new phenomena, simply so that truth about the subatomic realm may be ascertained by observation rather than by logical implication.

Quantum phenomena act differently than large objects. However, assumptions that violate causality are based upon a lack of ability to observe matter at the subatomic level. If we were able to observe these particles and their performance more directly then causality would probably not appear to be violated.

1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.

At 12/29/2014 11:09:56 AM, Vajrasattva-LeRoy wrote:L. Ron Hubbard stated that Absolutes have to be considered logically unobtainable.If particularity/ wave duality is, in fact, correct, then 100% wave probability & 0 % particle probability - or vice versa- has to be false.(Quantum Physics is Really Fascinating, isn't it? )The results of the Young Experiment, however, seem to be quite definite.There's no way that Particles, let alone ONE particle, can produce Interference Probability Wave Patterns.

L. Ron Hubbard is not a physicist and at least one prominent theory has proposed that matter can be both a wave and particle with no paradox, the de Broglie - Bohm theory also referred as the pilot wave theory. While not widely accepted, it is much more accepted than wave only theories.

Let's just be honest about it, nobody really knows exactly what matter is. We can forecast its behaviors with amazing accuracy, but as to what it is and what drives its behaviors is still a mystery. Anyone trying to proclaim 100% what it is or isn't is blowing smoke up ones arse.

Let me try this again:As I understand it, there can't be any such things as "particles" .Refer to the Young Experiment.Because of the uncertainty principle, The Einsteinian concept of theObserver & the Observed, etc. , it is IMPOSSIBLE for us tosee quantum level phenomena.The Observer seeing reflecting "electrons" automatically affects themomentum etc. , of The Observed.It's possible that people with the appropriate psychic abilities maybe able to see either quantum events or macro-universal events, or both.See, for example the Divine Powers section of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali.Your statement that Quantum phenomena act differently than large objectsdoesn't seem to make sense.As I've already stated, quantum just refers to very, very, tiny things.As far as I'm aware, size doesn't have anything to do with it.